posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:28 PM
Originally posted by intrepid
I think the first is pretty clearly a personal attack. The second says the same but it is not.
Does that help?
I was mostly interested in the comment that ALL attacks of groups should be refrained from.
I was curious if the person who posted that comment felt saying things like, (and I will pick on the Nazis here, they are an easy target) "The Nazis
were an evil, hateful organization" Or, "Hitler was an evil, hateful man." I was wondering if the words were the important part of the equation
I do personally understand that it might be more objective to say,
"I really disagree with the Nazi agenda. I find it unpleasant that they decided to kill several million humans to further their ends." Or, "That
Hitler, he sure an unpleasant character wasnt, he?" However, someone whose own family members were among that several million may express an opinion
that the party was "evil" for doing what they did, and Hitler "hateful" for ordering it.
Clearly the former is an attack against the group "Nazi" but would the person find this unacceptable?
I personally dont. I understand that humans are not purely rational beings, that we are also emotional beings. I dont think that all emotion could
or should be removed from our speech. I think it would lessen the impact of some arguments, and we respond to emotion more than reason often. We
like it better. For instance, I may argue a point rationally, but it will be when emotion seeps into a post that it actually lands the point home.
Its just the way we seem to be built. I personally am often dismayed that the logic I had worked so hard to present had less impact, but c'est la
I think the reason "no attacks on any group" is problematic because the author of that post did not clarify what an "attack" was. For them it
could be sharp criticism of their actions, or policy. Or sarcasm. Or it could be using emotionally charged words. I was just trying to gain insight
into what they considered "attacking."